Mankeeping: The Cluster B Squad’s Newest Fad-Theory

“Women are not exhausted from carrying men’s emotions. They’re exhausted from carrying their own entitlement.”

A bit about the writers first.

Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 5 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.

Karina holds a Master’s degree in Behavioral Science with concentrations in mental health, counseling, marriage and family therapy, career development, and child and adolescent therapy. She has a robust research background and is board-certified in brain health, ADHD, sensory processing, and wellness. She, too, actively sees clients in clinical practice.

Together, we represent both the psychological and pastoral lenses on today’s mental health landscape. We are deeply committed to truth over trend, accountability over blame, and growth over grievance. Which is exactly why we couldn’t let the recent Vice article on “Mankeeping” go unanswered. What you’re about to read isn’t just a rebuttal. It’s a reality check grounded in science, sharpened by real-world counseling experience, and unwilling to accept yet another one-sided cultural narrative that shames men while infantilizing women.

Grainger

I once had a friend of mine tell me that when he really wanted to meet a girl, he just took his dog to the park and Boom! There were beautiful girls everywhere. Then he carefully “accidentally” let his dog get too close to this gorgeous girl’s dog. Personally, I think it’s brilliant. But what if it wasn’t a dog park? What if it was women taking their boyfriends or husbands to a Man Park? Glad you asked.

Definition of Mankeeping

This concept of Mankeeping that is circulating the interweb is based on a paper¹ that was dropped on us last November. I received an email from the APA Div. 51 the day the paper on Mankeeping released and read it almost immediately. I made every attempt to read it with an open mind. It is based on the Theory of Kinkeeping, which is familial division of labor. This theory posits that females basically hold the family together by ensuring everyone stays in touch. Mankeeping flowed from this theory, adding that women take on the burden of men’s lack of social networks and thus bearing the brunt of their emotional baggage, making up for losses caused by men’s isolation. Here are some of the conclusions I came to:

Observations

I could see how it would be emotionally draining for the wife to be the loading dock for every problem a man has. There are certain things a man needs a man for. There are certain problems that a man cannot address with his wife, especially if she is the problem he needs addressing. And treating your wife as an emotional garbage can doesn’t help. There’s a balance. She needs to be in on most communication, but not all. And we can all agree that men need to get better at verbally communicating.

Men understand other men better than women understand men. Of course, this is due to our brain hemispheres being at different distances. Female brain hemispheres are closer together and there is a significantly higher fire rate between the hemispheres. Whereas male brain hemispheres are further apart and there is not much firing between them. So when a woman asks what he’s thinking about, and he says nothing, he really means- Nothing! And this fries a woman’s brain-circuits. She just can’t imagine a world in which one can sit and think of nothing. Here, a man must relate to another man about this.

The recent article in Vice addressing this paper didn’t mention that in the paper they addressed the concept of men relying on their partners to find them friends. They even mentioned in the paper the SNL skit where wives took their husbands to Man Park to play with other men. I don’t rely on my wife to make friends for me, but I also don’t have many friends. Mostly because the men in my life view me as a leader, which is a divider. Leaders separate the person from who they were (or are) into who they could be. Therefore, when they see me coming, they see a divider, not a friend.

Having said all that, I polled my wife and friends and their wives. I asked them if they felt the emotional pull from their husbands’ problems. They all said absolutely not. I think I know why.

Marriage vs. Dating

For the established relationship, she has already seen most of his worst characteristics. There is an expectation that he will turn to her before he turns to the bottle, drugs, porn, or another woman. Also, by this time, she wants him to be open and emotionally available. This is because they have spent years building something on the core principles of good relationships: trust, sacrifice, love as a verb, and loyalty.

He first tried to impress her. Wore his best shirt (probably his only clean shirt). Tried out that cologne he read about. Cleaned his car out for the first time this year. He wanted her to see the best parts of him so she would want a second date. Then the second date gets here and he gets the nerve to lean over and kiss her. This is how the dating scene looked 10, 15, and 20 years ago. Not today. And this is what the Vice article was addressing. Dating.

In the new dating scene, you snap each other. You hope she sends you something sexy. But she doesn’t. You wonder why. Then you hear and see on snapchat and TikTok that girls want a sensitive man. They don’t like toxic masculinity. So you dig deep to find the innermost parts of you and become vulnerable, because feminism. But then he makes a critical mistake.

See, for the new relationship, you’re still building something. You haven’t really established much yet. And yes, she wants to know what she’s getting into before the relationship takes off. But she doesn’t want too much too soon. And this is exactly what many Gen Z males are doing. They hear women say they want an emotionally available man, so they word vomit. She then gets turned off quickly. It’s because it’s out of balance. She needs to know what positive contribution he brings to the table first. She really just wants to see that he cleaned his car out. That he wore his best shirt. That he doesn’t smell like an oil slick.

One Possible Cause

One unspoken contributor is for years, that’s what women have been asking for. They’ve been criticizing anything masculine as broken. They’ve been scoffing at the idea that cognitive empathy is better than emotional empathy. “Of course, emotional empathy is better, because it’s what women do, and that makes it better.” Men have heard the outcry and responded. And now women are realizing they don’t really like the response. But they got what they asked for. And even worse, they can’t say that they asked for a spineless crybaby that they don’t really want. Because They’ll get cancelled by their peers. So they have to blame-shift. It’s the only course of action for the regretful Karens.

I think in homeostasis terms. There is bilateral culpability, in my estimation. Boys need to grow a pair and be the man they wanted to be when they were a kid, wrecking fire trucks into the Jenga tower. They need to put their best foot forward first. Be strong. Capable of protecting her. Regardless of what the cluster B Karens say, all women want to be protected.

Girls need to stop asking for a spineless man. Allow him to be the man he was designed to be. Stop playing victim incessantly. Be satisfied with him being very different than you. Be content with him learning how to become emotionally intelligent over time, even though he’s not right now. But of course, you also have the women who just play victim because it’s the new in-thing to do. And for those, no man will make them happy. But I will stop short of covering this and let Karina say it much better than I could.

Karina

Like Grainger, I too approached both the article and the research paper with an open mind and a sensible attitude. After reading them thoroughly, I walked away with a growing sense that modern relationships have been twisted into something coldly transactional and contractual. As

Abigail Shrier

aptly puts it, “Love isn’t an accessory. It’s an adventure.” So when exactly did we decide to throw men out with the bathwater?

What’s most ironic about this so-called “research” is that it starts in the middle of the story completely skipping over how we even got here. It’s a story that’s now being told with no sense of balance, no rational breakdown, and certainly no attempt to understand or accommodate both men and women in the conversation. Instead, it seems to be another installment in a growing cultural habit of placing blame squarely on men, with zero curiosity about the other half of the equation.

The audacity of academia inserting itself into the dating discourse wouldn’t bother me if academia weren’t already so incredibly biased. Why does that matter? Because despite the thousands of courses, degrees, and certificate programs dedicated to Women’s Studies, there isn’t a single mainstream academic institution in the U.S. offering a degree in Men’s Studies. Not one. Do you understand how minimizing and manipulative this is overall? Why are we surprised that college educated women (educated by a feminized culture) are crying about masculinity?

Oversight or Intentionality?

This is more than a minor oversight it’s an intentional, built-in bias. Writing entire research papers on relationships and dating without a single academic framework or scholarly resource focused on men their psychology, biology, emotional needs, or social challenges is already disparaging. But to then use that limited perspective to justify an article like “Mankeeping,” which amounts to little more than emotional gluttony, is even worse.

The narrative of this article positions men as emotionally dependent burdens, while highlighting women as the “mothers” the ones who must carry the weight of dealing with a man. But where is the insight, accountability, critical thinking, and self-agency of these so-called Mother Teresas? What happened to holding the actual mothers of these “emotionally stunted” men accountable for how they raised their boys? Furthermore, why aren’t these women who are “expected” to be everything for their boyfriends not setting boundaries and working on building a healthier relationship or leaving?

If a man is stoic, strong, accountable, and protective, he’s labeled controlling. If he’s emotionally flexible, open, and vulnerable, he’s suddenly “too much work.” What do women want? Because even Mel Gibson couldn’t figure it out. Have we considered the possibility that today’s woman might not even be able to tolerate dating herself let alone handle compromise, challenges, and growth in a relationship?

Clinically Speaking

In my practice, I work with both women and men who are currently trying to survive the black hole of modern dating. Men are afraid to compliment women because of the #MeToo movement, which has increased fear around being misunderstood or falsely accused. Men report that many of the women they attempt to date want to see their credit report before agreeing to meet for drinks. Women, on the other hand, often report being offended if their dinner isn’t paid for. Really?

So what is it, exactly, that a woman can offer a man in a relationship today that he can’t already provide for himself? You rarely hear or read about how men are exhausted by a woman’s constant, incessant emotional needs as she moves through her hormonal monthly journey. Why is only one side of emotional fatigue ever acknowledged?

Moreover, the suggestion that men need therapy while completely ignoring the emotional immaturity, unrealistic expectations, and entitlement often present in modern women is ridiculous. Many women lack emotional intelligence arguably more than men. But shhh we can’t discuss that. We can’t criticize women, because then we’re labeled womanhaters, jealous, or sexist.

Women are constantly praised for “knowing their worth,” even when that “worth” is based on shallow standards and zero depth beyond grooming habits, social media likes, and an obsession with hydration. If we’re going to demand that men “do the work,” then we must also be honest about how many women are actively avoiding their own growth—hiding behind situational trauma to justify a lifelong narrative of victimhood.

Conclusion

In the end, modern dating is not failing because men are emotionally stunted it’s failing because the narrative has been manipulated by emotionally inflamed women. Men are judged, discarded, and shamed, while women are excused, glorified, and insulated from criticism. If women are exhausted, so are men except men are expected to suffer silently.

Dating is a mess—as it should be. It’s an actual labor of love. It requires curiosity, courage, failure, misunderstandings, and, of course, micro-stressors. As Grainger pointed out, preparing for a date is an art form. The jitters, the unknown, the act of sharing a space together leaning on each other through conversation and physiological cues. What happened to putting in the work?

Where are the parents of these so-called victimized women who “can’t handle” dating men? Where are their fathers? Have they ever even tried to understand what a man needs in a relationship how to set boundaries and bring real value to each other? Of course not. Because, well, it’s too much emotional work to act like people and adults. Cuddling with a cellphone and raging against some trending social movement is easier. It’s more comfortable.

Speaking of comfortable, I guess I got too comfortable, and my dog just got out. And I’m not even looking for a date. I’m happily married! Gotta run!

That’s our 4 cents. Stay Classy!

1. Ferrara, A. P., & Vergara, D. P. (2024). Theorizing Mankeeping: The Male Friendship Recession and Women's Associated Labor as a Structural Component of Gender Inequality. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 25(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000494